How can you tell what is a non-review?

Posted by wowwee123 on July 3, 2008 at 9:16pm in Keeping Up With the Top Reviewers Ranking

Back to Keeping Up With the Top Reviewers Ranking Discussions

Let's discuss what would it consist of, and also at the same time create some rules that would be used as a guide that we would all need to follow and thereby not put up a review that is so-so but still a review.

(Draft) Rules (7/21/08)

1. Customer service issues (i.e. broken disc, wrong disc, mailing issue, etc.) are not reviews.

2. Fan-boy' reviews (reviews before the movie's release saying "I can't wait..." or giving information about the actors, possible plot, or release date) are not reviews.

3. Reviews that are not original (ie. copy/pasted from any other source) are not reviews. (Question: Do they need to be proven first?)

Objectionable Content:

4. Reviews that ONLY criticize another review (and offer no opinion based on their own viewing) are not reviews.

5. You agree that your name will be posted as the one who submitted the non-review.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by wowwee123 on July 21, 2008 at 2:29pm: I updated the thread heading with ~~four~~ 5 draft rules. I have question on #3 - how do we deal with that?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by poohbear7882 on July 21, 2008 at 2:32pm: Well, maybe whoever finds it (since they've already discovered that it is copied) could supply the link they found. In theory, if you've found a review that was plagiarized, you've found the location that it came from too...else, how would you know it was plagiarized?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by wowwee123 on July 21, 2008 at 2:36pm: Also, do we incorporate the thread - Reviews that Aren't Reviews? If yes, how to go about it?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by poohbear7882 on July 21, 2008 at 2:40pm: Well, I suppose we could transfer those reviews...copy/paste? At least the ones that follow these rules.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by wowwee123 on July 21, 2008 at 2:42pm: Then attach the source as coming from that thread as in rule #5.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by poohbear7882 on July 21, 2008 at 2:44pm: Yeah. That'll work.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by wowwee123 on July 21, 2008 at 2:48pm: So that makes 1 in agreement, need a few more.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by I'm Not a Turnip on July 23, 2008 at 10:29am: I think 4 & 5 fit better under "objectionable content".; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by wowwee123 on July 23, 2008 at 1:18pm: I added a "category", is that what you meant?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by I'm Not a Turnip on July 23, 2008 at 2:31pm: (Oops, I should have said 3 & 4, not 4 & 5.)

I was referring to the Objectionable Content category under "Flag This":

By the way, I'm not trying to be contrary about all this - just stating my opinion. Even if the consensus is to include items 3 & 4 under Not a Review, I'll still participate by reporting and flagging only items 1 & 2. I'm sure everyone else will do as their conscience dictates as well.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by poohbear7882 on July 22, 2008 at 2:01pm: BigBen proposed a question on the thread Reviews that Aren't Reviews (page 30) that I think needs to be addressed.

"I couldn't give it zero stars" and "don't waste your time"

Are these reviews?

I suppose you could say that they've offered an opinion...sort of. But is this really a review?

Also brought up on that thread was the "This sucked." reviews. That IS an opinion about the movie and for that reason, I would say it shouldn't be on the list.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by I'm Not a Turnip on July 23, 2008 at 10:27am: I think "I couldn't give it zero stars" and "don't waste your time" obviously implies the author hated the movie. I consider those opinions to be exactly the same as "This sucked." Bad reviews, but still reviews.; ▶ Reply to This